CDOT Performance Data Business Plan - Cambridge Systematics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendices How and when they are defined (quarterly? annually?) Connection of macro- and micro- levels Allow flexibility to change measures SAP will help CDOT avoid silos and better integrate performance reporting. This project will feed into requirements for the dashboard. Interviews Twenty-four interviews were conducted with a wide variety of headquarters and region CDOT staff. Comments were received related to CDOT’s performance measurement process, data management/governance, and specific recommended high level performance measures. The recommendations from the interviews were used to create the first version of the framework. The comments will also be used in the remainder of the project. The following summarizes the main take-away points related to the project. CDOT Annual Report: The report may be sending the wrong message, because too many of the measures are shown as a green light. This indicates that a target has been met, but does not communicate if the target is a “good” target or not. Report could be improved by providing trend information. For example, alcohol fatalities have gone down (trend) however, is still reported as a red light in the performance report. Data Governance: Data governance standards should clearly define measures. For example, the definition of “injury” has changed over time, and “crash rates” are not calculated consistently (e.g., crashes per 100 million VMT and crashes per million VMT are both used). Possible obstacles to PMs and Data Governance include change management (attitudes and behavior/culture change). There is a disconnect with respect to data i.e. different branches own different data makes it difficult to establish performance measures. Specific Measures: Safety should not be included in overall program level tradeoffs, because much of work is done (and benefits achieved) through other programs. Mobility measure should be based on delay on a subset of urban corridors which would be more meaningful than a statewide number that includes a significant rural component. Reliability is a good measure, but very difficult to explain to public. A recommended pavement measure is “Percent pavement in good/fair condition (based on RSL).” There is an opportunity for tighter coordination between pavement surface LOS and capital pavement measure (RSL). This connection is tighter for bridges because data used for bridge LOS is provided by the bridge management system. Recommended bridge measure is “Percent of deck area on bridges in good/fair condition” (includes bridges and major culverts). Cambridge Systematics, Inc. D-4
Appendices The two most important delivery measures are on-time and on-budget: Options for on time include obligating money (same as advertising project), starting project, and completing project. Highest priority for CDOT is advertisement date (consistent with previous interview). Public is most interested in: contract estimated completion, actual completion and reason for difference. The following should be measured: 1. How well did CDOT do the estimate? 2. Was it met? 3. Reasons if not. Good milestones to track would be: 1. Is budget set up before going to bid? 2. Was there a change in budget after bid? 3. If changes occurred – are they justified? 4. What was the final budget? The fundamental data is already in SAP to track these 4 – the dates just need to be tightened. The ideal on-time budget would have thresholds for “on-time” that vary by project type. For example, a resurfacing project could be 1 month within the ad date, while a bigger project could be 2-3 months. The target for an on-time measure based on ad date should not be 100 percent. This would indicate that staff is too conservative in their estimates. For this measure, a tight definition and process for when/how to calculate it are critical. For example, on time could be defined as project ad within 30 days of current ad date. An ideal measure might be project-based, e.g., percent of projects on-time, or percent of projects on-time weighted by project cost. General An audit of PMs was conducted and it was found that the data was not checked. CDOT needs to do better measuring program level and connection between federal and financing (e.g., how was money spent and what did we get for it?). Need set rules in place for commonly reported data – e.g. there are different ways of reporting (centerline miles, lane miles, two directions etc.). Need an annual “publication” from IRIS to send to SAP. Need to be able to drill down on measure so a person can see how their performance objectives link to those of the work unit, division and Department. Reporting needs to be more outcome oriented (e.g. rather than focusing on whether a bid was on time – what was the quality of the work? Regions There appears to be a disconnect between project decisions made in regions and the performance measures reported by CDOT. It is important for regions to buy into future measures and feel a sense of accountability for them. It is a good idea to break down the measures by region. The more information, the better for the decision makers. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. D-5
Page 3:
final report CDOT Performance Data
Page 7:
CDOT Performance Data Business Plan
Page 10 and 11:
List of Figures, continued vi Cambr
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 81 and 82:
5.0 External Reporting Dashboard CD
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92: CDOT Performance Data Business Plan
Page 103: CDOT Performance Data Business Plan
Page 109: Figure 5.18 CDOT Dashboard Example
Page 119 and 120: Appendices A. Additional Data Colle
Page 121 and 122: Appendices Recognize and Plan
Page 123: Appendices Improved communication
Page 126 and 127: Appendices Planning Ext Planning In
Page 138 and 139: Appendices Person, Ron, Balanced Sc
Page 140 and 141: Appendices CDOT is required to rep
Page 144 and 145: Appendices If measures reported by
Page 146 and 147: Appendices INTEGRATE REGIONAL AND S
Page 148 and 149: Appendices Maintain or improve
Page 151 and 152: Appendices F. Sample Data Governanc
Page 153 and 154: Appendices G. Congestion The report
Page 155 and 156: Appendices Table G-1 Revised Segmen
Page 157 and 158: Appendices Results The following ta
Page 159 and 160: Appendices Figure G-1 Speed Eastbou
Page 161 and 162: Appendices Figure G-5 Speed Westbou
Page 163 and 164: Appendices A useful format for the
Page 165 and 166: Appendices Figure G-13 AM Peak PTI
Page 167 and 168: Appendices H. Calculation Spreadshe
Page 169 and 170: Appendices Cambridge Systematics, I
show all

CDOT Performance Data Business Plan - Cambridge Systematics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?